Good: Mona Lisa - A lot of good choices here and it's difficult to pick out a single movie which towers above the rest, but I was quite astonished by how much this one moved me the first time I saw it. Hoskins has never been better.

Bad: In Dreams - This one doesn't quite work, but it contains some great material. I'd rather see it again than quite a few movies which achieve their goals more successfully.

Ugly: High Spirits - I've heard that Jordan more or less had this one taken away from him by the studio, and it shows. Peter O'Toole is always a delight (even when he's kinda bad, as he is in this film), but the movie is such a mess. I'd be up for checking out Jordan's supposedly smaller, gentler director's cut if he ever releases it.

Really. Good score, production design, and music, but a complete failure in every other department. I also think the source material is one of the absolute worst novels I've ever read, so what do I know?

That's part of the problem, the source. Her novels don't lend well to movies so the studios pick parts of different novels. They did it much more with the much worse sequel however.

Anne Rice was a decent author when she was sane. She had good ideas but a clunky writing style that made the books less enjoyable. It's hard to explain really. I kept reading, but didn't enjoy them as much as books that I put down. Now that she's gone bat sh!t crazy I've lost track. Last I heard she tried to pretend her smut never existed, wanted to distance herself from the witch books (that I never read) and while acknowledging the Vampire books wanted to make it clear that she no longer approved of them and would not write any more.

-Marshall-
Nun sacciu, nun vidi, nun ceru e si ceru durmiv.I know nothing, I see nothing, I wasn't there,
and if I was there, I was asleep.

Really. Good score, production design, and music, but a complete failure in every other department. I also think the source material is one of the absolute worst novels I've ever read, so what do I know?

No props for the actors? I can understand not connecting to the story but, in my biased opinion, the movie's perfect in every other area.

JoshRode wrote:Ugly: Interview With a Vampire - Mostly because the two vamps should have been reversed. Cruise is just awful as Lestat.

Speaking of which, and typing to the Rice conversation, Lestat was the only book of hers I really enjoyed, except for the stupid rock star angle. Queen of the Damned was also okay.

First, I'm not sure Cruise could have played Louis. Obviously they cast him for the name, and Rice having a caniption about it only helped sell tickets. Can Cruise play the tortured soul? I've never seen him do it but that's not to say it can't happen.

Lestat was good if you try to ignore the rock star part. QotD was better.

I'm told Rice is no longer insane. The short version I was given was that she went through some emotional fear, felt very guilty, and tried to play a nice christian martyr. That's over. She's still a drama queen, but we know that will never change.

-Marshall-
Nun sacciu, nun vidi, nun ceru e si ceru durmiv.I know nothing, I see nothing, I wasn't there,
and if I was there, I was asleep.

OK, I'll have to give you that. None of the roles are "Louis" but added up it does show that he can probably do it. I can see where they were going casting him as Lestat. They were thinking Top Gun perhaps but he was out of his element.

I still he did fine however. I think the awkwardness he had as Lestat actually fit the character. Lestat was always acting so having someone portray him so obviously works.

-Marshall-
Nun sacciu, nun vidi, nun ceru e si ceru durmiv.I know nothing, I see nothing, I wasn't there,
and if I was there, I was asleep.